Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (2.42 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Basant Rai Takhat Singh on 28 April, 1933

Km. Preeti Singh, Meerut vs Ito, Noida on 31 October, 2018

(4.1.1) On perusal of Section 4(1) of I.T. Act, it is obvious that in the year under consideration, no addition can be made in respect of investments in property made by the assessee in earlier years or in respect of deposits in bank accounts of the assessee made in earlier year which brought forward to this year for making cheque payments of the aforesaid total amount of Rs. 6,05,100/-. Moreover, in any case, when certain amounts were invested by the assessee and also, certain other amounts were deposited in the bank account of the assessee, in previous years relevant to earlier A.Ys.; such investments or deposits could not possibly have been out of the income of the previous year under consideration (relevant to A.Y. 2009-10). It is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period. Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. We take strength from decisions reported at Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT 24 ITR 506(SC); ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC); CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 188 ITR 44(SC) and CIT vs. Basant Rai Takht Singh 1 ITR 197 (SC) for the proposition that each 'previous year' is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment and further, that the profits made; and the liabilities of losses made before or after the relevant previous year are immaterial in assessing income of a particular year; unless in accordance with proviso to Section 4(1) of I.T. Act, there is statutory provision to the contrary, authorizing income of a period other than the previous year under consideration to be charged to income-tax (such as Section 71B of I.T. Act and Section Page 13 of 16 ITA No.-6909/Del/2014.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Acit, New Delhi vs M/S. Housing & Urban Development ... on 21 December, 2018

(3.2) We have given anxious consideration to the submission made by the Ld. AR of the Assessee that if this claim is not allowed in this year, it will cause hardship to the Assessee because the aforesaid claim of Rs. 1,60,00,000 towards ad hoc provision on account of pay revision has not been claimed by the Assessee in the subsequent years. However, in view of Kikabhai Premchand v/s CIT 24 ITR 506 (SC), ITO v/s Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC), CIT v/s British Paints India Ltd. 188 ITR 44 (SC) and CIT v/s Basant Rai Takht Singh 1 ITR 197 (SC), it is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period, Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. Thus, each previous year is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment. The profits made; and the liabilities or losses made before or after the relevant previous year are immaterial in assessing income of a particular year; unless in accordance with proviso to Page 16 of 39 ITA Nos.-5705 & 6151/Del/2014.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi Cites 65 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Orissa Power Transmission Corporation ... vs Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), ... on 27 October, 2020

3.2 We have given anxious consideration to the submission made by the Ld. AR of the Assessee that if this claim is not allowed in this year, it will cause hardship to the Assessee because the aforesaid claim of Rs. 1,60,00,000 towards ad hoc provision on account of pay revision has not been claimed by the Assessee in the subsequent years. However, in view of Sir Kikabhai Premchand v. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506 (SC), ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [1964] 52 ITR 335 (SC), CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. [1991] 54 Taxman 499/188 ITR 44 (SC) and CIT v. Basant Rai Takhat Singh [1933] 1 ITR 197 (PC), it is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period, Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. Thus, each previous year is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment. The profits made; and the liabilities or losses made before or after the relevant previous year are immaterial in assessing income of a particular year; unless in accordance with proviso to Section 4(1) of I.T. Act, there is statutory provision to the contrary.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Acit, Corporate Circle-1(2), ... vs M/S. Odisha Power Generation ... on 19 September, 2022

1,60,00,000/- towards ad hoc provision on account of pay revision has not been claimed by the Assessee in the subsequent years. However, in view of Sir Kikabhai Premchand vs. CIT [1953] 24 ITR 506 (SO, ITO vs. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das [19641 52 ITR 335 (SO, CIT vs. British Paints India Ltd. 11991] 54 Taxman 499/188 ITR 44 (SO and CIT vs. Basant Rai Takhat Singh [1933] 1 ITR 197 (PC), it is well settled that each year is separate and self-contained period, Income Tax is annual in its structure and organization. Thus, each previous year is a distinct unit of time for the purposes of assessment. The profits made; and the liabilities or losses made before or after the relevant previous year are immaterial in assessing income of a particular year; unless in accordance with proviso to Section 4(1) of IT. Act, there is statutory provision to the contrary.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cuttack Cites 55 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Sagar Gramin Bank(Presently Merged ... vs Acit, Circle-42, Murshidabad, ... on 17 February, 2023

It cannot be said that the funds of the Bank which were not lent to borrowers but were laid out the form of deposits in another bank to-add in the profits instead of lying idle, necessarily ceased to be a part of the stock-in-trade of the bank or that the interest arising therefrom did not form part of its business profits . Under the bye-laws 68 one of the objects of the appellant bank is to carry on the general business of banking and therefore subject to the Co-operative Societies Act. It has to carry on its business in the manner that ordinary banks do. It may be added (hat the various heads under s. 6 of the Income Tax Act and the provisions of the Act applicable to these various heads are mutually exclusive. Section 12 is a residuary section and does not come into operation until the preceding heads are excluded Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rasant Rai Takhat Singh [1933]1 I.T.R 197. "
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 23 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Surat District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. ... vs Income Tax Officer And Ors. on 20 November, 2002

It cannot be said that the funds of the bank which were not lent to borrowers but were laid out in the form of deposits in another bank to add to the profit instead of lying idle necessarily ceased to be a pan of the stock-in-trade of the bank, or that the interest arising therefrom did not form part of its business profits. Under the bye-laws one of the objects of the appellant-bank is to carry on the general business of banking and, therefore, subject to the Co-operative Societies Act, it has to carry on its business in the manner that ordinary banks do. It may be added that the various heads under Section 6 of the IT Act and the provisions of that Act applicable to these various heads are mutually exclusive. Section 2 is a residuary section and does not come into operation until the preceding heads are excluded. CIT v. Basant Rai Takhat Singh (1933) 1 ITR 197 (Bom).
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad Cites 77 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

Cochin Cottage Industries ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mysore, ... on 16 March, 1956

6. The amounts were returned as the profits of the assessees business and assessed as such and the learned counsel for the Department was unable to suggest any argument in support of the assumption made. Section 12 deals only with such taxable income, profits and gains as fall outside the preceding specific heads like "profits and gains of business, profession and vocation." It is expressly confined to income which is "not included in any; of the preceding heads" and as stated by the Privy Council in Commissioner of Income-tax, U. P. v. Basant Rai Takhat Singh "section 12 does not come into operation untile the preceding heads are excluded."
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 18 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Bikaner Gypsum Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 29 October, 1968

In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Basant Rai Takhat Singh, [1933] 1 I.T.R. 197 (P.C.) it has been held that under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the allowance for any expenditure incurred must be an allowance for expenditure incurred in the year in respect of which the income, profits and gains forming the basis of the assessment arose. There can be no justification for deducting from the profits and gains something in respect of expenditure, whether it be regarded as capital expenditure or not, which occurred years before.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 18 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next